The two party system conspiracy

All I hear from fringers here is how "bad" the two party system is. It only became convenient for anybody recently (as in the past during low party approval ratings) to give a damn about any corrupt system. When everybody was conservative during the early 00's nobody gave a damn about anything until it became apparent howmuch of a wreck the previous conservative administration came about. The truth is that the individuals here who claim to be against this "system" continue to promote it and come 2012 they will be no different. I remember during the early 90s we had the exact same group of rightwingers claiming their "disgust" against the two party system while spending 99% of their time bashing liberals and democrats only. These individuals have no standing or no credibility what so ever anymore. They always wound up supporting their republican candidates come the congressional/presidential elections.

There are 50 other parties to choose from besides Democrat and republican, yet they hardly get close to a double digit number come election time. The cycle of the two party system is in anycase inevitable, there will always be a combined effort by two combined sides to push forth and agreed agenda. The issue isnt the "two party system", its whether those policies are right.

If you have half the conservative population stating they had nothing to do with Bush over the last 8years, that they have no responsibility for electing the man in 2000 and 2004, no responsibility for his policies or the wrong doings of either party, why is it that these third parties and the minor candidates such as Paul continue to get such minority support? Surely it'd be common sense to recognize that the majority of those "anti-partisan two party" conservatives who advocated the very system they proclaimed to be corrupt now are trying to clean their involvement of it. That the scapegoating of certain individuals are not the only source of the problem among conservatives, that the very "hard working ultra patriotic alarmist" conservatives were partly what lead to the GOP and its point now. Surely it'd be common sense to recognize the majority of these "independents" would up supporting the good ol' GOP candidate again, support the same old policies once that administration gets in, and then claim no support or involvement in supporting that very candidate once there comes a political train wreck.

The majority of these "anti-two party" conservatives on here outright supported bush and his policies, voted him in twice and turned a blind eye all those years. They know it, they understand the cycle and they know that they will end up supporting another GOP candidate once again, advocating his position as president again. So continue to denounce this "two party system" because to me your the same old bushie pulling off the same old stunt you did years prior. Take off the costumes. Atleast then we can have a nice and honest debate here.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Well put, I would like to see more discussion of this issue on this site.

Aside from conspiracy theory regarding the two primary parties and marginalization of other parties, there is certainly something wrong with the current system.

When it comes down to it government is simply a specialized organization with the goal of representing the common interest of its people. It is important that we always remember, especially in these times where government is becoming an increasingly...mythical entity to the average person. However, not forgetting the government of the Unites States is simply an organization allows us to examine its efficacy without bias.

At an organizational level, it is cumbersome and designed to be in conflict with itself, not only as a result of the two parties, but the checks and balances within branches as well. To the average person this internal conflict is a good thing, a check against tyranny and/or one-party rule. However, if we intelligently examine the government as an organization, it is clear that this internal conflict only proliferates inefficiency, at your expense. In a more ethical society these checks against tyranny are unnecessary.

The main problem lies in:
a) Electing politicians of sufficient intelligence, and therefore, ethics
b) Recognizing that the group consensus tends to reflect lower than average intelligence; that is the main problem of democracy and applies to not only the electorate but the Senate and House of Representatives as well. Just think, do you want the person of average intelligence deciding the direction of your country?

How long do you think this government organization, rife with internal conflict, inefficiency and, misdirection, will last? Probably will not make it through this century, honestly. Let us not be so consumed with egocentrism we fail to recognize the United States' short life span within the scope of (known) world history.

However, an effective solution starts today with increasing every individual's ability to read.

Truthfully,
Shane

The two party system seems to be what the American people are comfortable with, although, as you point out, there are way more than two parties.

The only reason we have what is called a two party system is because no other party can get enough support to be elected and become a force to reckon with.

It could happen and I suspect that at some point one party or the other will be supplanted by another.

One thing I'd like to know, though. Isn't the current administration doing enough to keep the left's imagination occupied?

The Bush administration was not nearly as corrupt as you claim and there is no indication that the current administration is composed of saints, given all the problems Obama has had naming cabinet members and a number of bone-headed gaffes by administration officials.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

There are 50 other parties to choose from besides Democrat and republican, yet they hardly get close to a double digit number come election time. The cycle of the two party system is inevitability, there will always be a combined effort by two sides to push forth and agreed agenda. The issue isnt the two party system", its whether those policies are right.

If the media refuses to give legitimacy to any of the third parties...then expanding on the 2 party system will never happen. The only way to do it is to have HUGE funding if you are not one of the major parties....and since they are polar opposites of one another for the most part (Dems/Reps)...there is no reason for someone who is donating money to a campaign to give money to a lesser known candidate if t hey feel they have NO CHANCE OF WINNING.

It's all about tv time...if you don't have it in this day and age...then you have no chance...none...and you know that SG.

The system is broken...whether you want to believe it or not....and the media takes a huge part in the blame....as well as all of us who continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

The majority of these "anti-two party" conservatives on here outright supported bush and his policies, voted him in twice and turned a blind eye all those years. They know it, they understand the cycle and they know that they will end up supporting another GOP candidate, advocating his position as president. So continue to denounce this "two party system" because to me your the same old bushie pulling off the same old stunt you did years prior. Take off the costumes. Atleast then we can have a nice and honest debate here.

Stifling isn't it? What shall we do?

Republicans - Tax cuts, huge deficits, war, inflation, larger government.
Democrats - tax cuts/increases, huge deficits, war, inflation, larger government.

The Republican party is trash...i really hope it disappears...but it won't...why?

Because people are going to look back in 4 or 8 years...see that Dems overlooked the deficit as things continued to get worse...and they will switch back.

THEY ALWAYS DO. That is the cycle. THAT is what you should be worried about.

The people that put Presidents in office are for the most part....people who don't pay attention to politics....because if they did...our entire history of Presidents would be different.


Now...as for Conservatives saying claiming the system is broken...of course they would think so if they can't find anyone in government that represents their ideals.

And yes...there are still Bush supporters out there that stand up for the guy...I know a few and they WON'T budge on it...but the reason they won't budge is because they won't look at any other information.

They like him because he goes to church and claims to be a family man with Christian values.

Unfortunately that's all it takes to be President for some people.

Or the promise of handouts.

Originally posted by David9176

Republicans - Tax cuts, huge deficits, war, inflation, larger government.
Democrats - tax cuts/increases, huge deficits, war, inflation, larger government.

Sounds about right: a two headed, one party system. This gives our system political stability.

It's not just a right-wing issue, either. How many people think that Ralph Nader was the best candidate four/eight/whatever years ago? Enough to at least win some states and begin to change the political landscape. So why didn't this happen? All of these people bought into the notion that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

This year we saw "a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama." None of these people notice that the two main parties are identical in nearly every situation, except when it comes to the "hot-button" issues.